Bjorn_L

Bjorn_L

Lives in United States Seattle, WA, United States
Joined on Jul 29, 2009
About me:

Current Cameras:
Nikon d700 with a number of lenses.
Nikon d90 with a number of lenses.
Sony rx10
and a couple of older dust collectors.
Previous Cameras:
Mostly Minolta film cameras (and 1 Canon), Minolta 7d, Canon 500d (aka T1i), and a close to a dozen bridge and pocket cameras. My favorite was the Minolta 7i.

Comments

Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Hands-on with the Pentax K-3 II article (555 comments in total)

What a fantastic sounding, innovative camera. I love the use of pixel shift to get a foveon image quality and reduction in high ISO noise. I also think the GPS function to reduce/eliminate star trails is also very clever.
I don't see the elimination of popup flash as a bad thing. Those things are just red-eye inducing, shadow ruining things as far as I'm concerned. They should develop a low cost flash-controller similar to the Nikon SU800 (which is not cheap). This would offset the loss of a built in command mode and reduce the need for a 2-flash minimum to have off camera flash.
I can't remember the last time I used the on board flash on a camera.... I "think" I did it once this past year when the batteries in my external flash died... I made a crude paper reflector/diffuser to reduce the nasties a built in adds to an image.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2015 at 12:24 UTC as 56th comment
On Video Field Test: Tamron SP 15-30mm F2.8 Di VC USD article (84 comments in total)

Nice video, I enjoyed watching it. Which Nikon did you use?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 14, 2015 at 23:55 UTC as 39th comment | 1 reply
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

Rishi,
It does make sense. Thanks for the clarification.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 23:13 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

I disagree about DXO. It is the defacto standard and there is a reason sites like this one site it in their reviews. However I didn't just use use DXO I also used the comparison tool within the review to give it the eye-ball test against one of the cameras they mentioned in their conclusion, and in neither case did I see the NX1 pulling away in fact it was not better than the d7200. Whenever I see very enthusiastic in a review I always want to check it to see for myself. The fact that I can not is why I asked the question. Hoping they will answer.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:47 UTC
On Samsung NX1 Review preview (1200 comments in total)

You say it pulls away from other aps-c cameras but in viewing the comparison in raw and compare the d7200 and nx1 they seem close to identical even at the higher ISOs where you state the NX1 pulls away. The d7200 and nx1 seem about 1/2 stop better at ISO than the other two (in RAW).
I then went to DXO to see what the sensor is actually doing and the scores are up for the NX1 but not the d7200 so I used the d5500. In the base scores the the d5500 did better. I'm not saying the NX1 is not a very good camera, but it seems you went a little overboard in praising the sensor.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Samsung-NX1___998_976

Direct link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 22:03 UTC as 230th comment | 7 replies
On Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal article (810 comments in total)

This reads like it was written by a fanboy not an analyst.

If you need 4k, then the lack of stabilization would seem to be a deal killer on this. Particularly when combined with the slow lens. The Gh4 simply seems a better solution. It too has all-in-one solutions which cover the same range but don't give up stabilized 4k video. Sealed lenses too, if you want that. Plus you have the option of using f/1.4 or even f/0.95 lenses and high end add-ons. Ultimately the gh4 seems to be a better solution and while you can add many $1000s in add-ons to it, to achieve the modest specs of the xc10 you could do so at a lower price point.

If you don't need 4k video (and very few really do) then the Sony rx10 seems a better solution. The lens takes in 4x as much light at the long end. It is wider and about as long. The rx10 has the same DR & bit rate, stabilized zoom, sealed lens.

I fail to see how this is worth considering by anyone not just in love with it because of the brand.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 20:39 UTC as 206th comment | 5 replies
On Lensbaby introduces Velvet 56mm f/1.6 article (166 comments in total)

Hmm... don't understand this lens at all.

Blurry/Soft is not hard to achieve. It is not desirable in a lens.

A lens which is intentionally soft is odd. The same effect can be applied in post processing or just by buying the cheapest lens you can and screwing up the front element or putting a nasty filter in the front.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 7, 2015 at 22:35 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

Also it occurred to me that I know someone doing what you describe. They have no commercials and no monthly fee either. I could do this with the actiontec or the other network device I use since all it takes is a PC with a HDMI in and a video capture card of somekind which the livestream would also require.

In the end the livestream is more costly, less capable and about as pointless a product as I have ever seen.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:25 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

What I do is live streaming. But, I use a different (similarly priced) device to move data across a public network, but it is based on HDMI on the ends. I prefer the actiontec because it is wireless. But I could use either one and a tablet to share the screen as well. But what I use wouldn't allow adding graphics, at least I don't I think so, but that is not a goal for me and so I never tried.

But still actiontec (and others) at least support 1080p and HAVE NO COMMERCIALS and NO MONTHLY FEE. While the above product is more costly only 1080i (which would seem to belie your highend claims as 720p/1080i is not high end to me).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 18:15 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

I use actiontecs to stream directly from a Camera to multiple TVs. I remote control the camera via a tablet. How do you see the livestream broadcaster being used? Since to me it seems it would be used in exactly the same way.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

The Actiontec does not need anything except a transmitter and a receiver (or a bunch of receivers). And none of the others come a monthly fee or advertising. The one in this article will in the end be by far the most costly even if you opt for the one with advertisements included in the stream this one is over priced

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 17:22 UTC

There are numerous HDMI streamers out there. This is the only one with a monthly fee or advertising. Go to amazon.com and search for HDMI transmitter. Or just look at Actiontec brand as an example.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 06:43 UTC as 8th comment | 9 replies
On Hands-on with Nikon D7200 article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: Sounds nice. Get the body with a Sigma 18-35/1.8 ($800 new) and Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS ($600-$800 used). Maybe add a Tokina 11-20/2.8, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary ($1200 new) or Nikon 300/4 ($2000). An external video recorder should give excellent results; it now has a flat picture style...de rigueur for video (standard video compression crushes the shadows limiting grading in post).

It will be interesting to see how this stacks up against the $500 more expensive Canon 7D Mark II.

This is a camera that will be used for telephoto work. On issue is that there is only 1 auto focus point at F8. It would have been nice if it supported the same 11 points at F8 as the D750 which also has a 51 point sensor. It would also have been nice if it had that camera's tilt screen.

Still, the body is just over half the cost of the D750, lenses are a lot less expensive, and it has the crop sensor high pixel density telephoto capability.

Mark K,
I have the exact same high opinion of the Sigma lens. If I get the d7200 that won't be the reason, but it most certainly would be on my must buy list.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 15:55 UTC
On Hands-on with Nikon D7200 article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: Sounds nice. Get the body with a Sigma 18-35/1.8 ($800 new) and Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS ($600-$800 used). Maybe add a Tokina 11-20/2.8, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary ($1200 new) or Nikon 300/4 ($2000). An external video recorder should give excellent results; it now has a flat picture style...de rigueur for video (standard video compression crushes the shadows limiting grading in post).

It will be interesting to see how this stacks up against the $500 more expensive Canon 7D Mark II.

This is a camera that will be used for telephoto work. On issue is that there is only 1 auto focus point at F8. It would have been nice if it supported the same 11 points at F8 as the D750 which also has a 51 point sensor. It would also have been nice if it had that camera's tilt screen.

Still, the body is just over half the cost of the D750, lenses are a lot less expensive, and it has the crop sensor high pixel density telephoto capability.

Scottelly,
I too have been waiting forever it seems to get a d400. But I have to say this d7200 (unlike the d7000 and d7100) does seem very very close. Sealed, big buffer, state of the art focus system. Still if a higher spec d400 with a heavier body, larger grip (like a d800 with a d7200 sensor) were to arrive, I'd prefer that. I understand that some love the fold out screen (ala d750) but for me, it is not a concern. A heavier body would be preferred though.

Mark K,
Might I suggest dxomark.com. With your interest in sensor performance this site is sure to be interesting.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 15:07 UTC
On Hands-on with Nikon D7200 article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

DavidNJ100: Sounds nice. Get the body with a Sigma 18-35/1.8 ($800 new) and Sigma 50-150/2.8 OS ($600-$800 used). Maybe add a Tokina 11-20/2.8, the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary ($1200 new) or Nikon 300/4 ($2000). An external video recorder should give excellent results; it now has a flat picture style...de rigueur for video (standard video compression crushes the shadows limiting grading in post).

It will be interesting to see how this stacks up against the $500 more expensive Canon 7D Mark II.

This is a camera that will be used for telephoto work. On issue is that there is only 1 auto focus point at F8. It would have been nice if it supported the same 11 points at F8 as the D750 which also has a 51 point sensor. It would also have been nice if it had that camera's tilt screen.

Still, the body is just over half the cost of the D750, lenses are a lot less expensive, and it has the crop sensor high pixel density telephoto capability.

Mark K,
I would be shocked if the 7d mk2 tests better at high ISO. I can not recall the last Canon which took the lead in ISO performance.
Still, the Canon 7dm2 is certainly a VERY good camera. It, this new Nikon, the Pentax k3 and Sony a77II give consumers looking for a high end APS-C camera a lovely quartet to choose between.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2015 at 16:06 UTC
In reply to:

Bjorn_L: Since conflicting info is out there, I contacted Tamron to find out if the lens is sealed. It is not.

From Tamron
"Thank you for contacting Tamron! The 15-30mm has moisture resistant design that helps prevent water from penetrating the lens. It is not however sealed to be water or weather proof so it is still possible for moisture to get in the lens. The design is intended to reduce the risk of damage should the lens come in contact with water but I would highly recommend keeping it away from rain or prolonged high humidity if you can."

The 16-35 is sealed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 01:26 UTC

Since conflicting info is out there, I contacted Tamron to find out if the lens is sealed. It is not.

From Tamron
"Thank you for contacting Tamron! The 15-30mm has moisture resistant design that helps prevent water from penetrating the lens. It is not however sealed to be water or weather proof so it is still possible for moisture to get in the lens. The design is intended to reduce the risk of damage should the lens come in contact with water but I would highly recommend keeping it away from rain or prolonged high humidity if you can."

Direct link | Posted on Feb 26, 2015 at 16:05 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies

Has there been confirmation that this lens is sealed? If not I think I prefer the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 or Nikon 16-35 f/4 vr (which is sealed)
The lens specifications on DPR and on Tamron's own site make no mention of sealing.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 17:05 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Franz Weber: Why does nobody make a 12-50mm 2.8-4.0 lens?

I am using a GH3.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 22:05 UTC
In reply to:

Franz Weber: Why does nobody make a 12-50mm 2.8-4.0 lens?

@deep7 what adapter do you use and what do you call "quickly enough". I have an m4/3 and an adapter to use 4/3 lenses and my experience that focus is painfully slow. I tried several adapters as well and they all perform identically in this regard.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2015 at 21:41 UTC
Total: 129, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »